Got a warming wound? Rub a salt marsh in it.

From the University of Virginia, comes yet another incomplete press release that doesn’t give the name of the paper or the DOI:

Marsh Bride Brook and Coastal Salt Marsh, East...

Marsh Bride Brook and Coastal Salt Marsh, East Lyme Conn. July 2003; 1204 pixels X 521 pixels. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Salt marsh carbon may play role in slowing climate warming, study shows

A warming climate and rising seas will enable salt marshes to more rapidly capture and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, possibly playing a role in slowing the rate of climate change, according to a new study led by a University of Virginia environmental scientist and published in the Sept. 27 issue of the journal Nature.

Carbon dioxide is the predominant so-called “greenhouse gas” that acts as sort of an atmospheric blanket, trapping the Earth’s heat. Over time, an abundance of carbon dioxide can change the global climate, according to generally accepted scientific theory. A warmer climate melts polar ice, causing sea levels to rise.

A large portion of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels to energize a rapidly growing world human population.

“We predict that marshes will absorb some of that carbon dioxide, and if other coastal ecosystems – such as seagrasses and mangroves – respond similarly, there might be a little less warming,” said the study’s lead author, Matt Kirwan, a research assistant professor of environmental sciences in the College of Arts & Sciences.

Salt marshes, made up primarily of grasses, are important coastal ecosystems, helping to protect shorelines from storms and providing habitat for a diverse range of wildlife, from birds to mammals, shell- and fin-fishes and mollusks. They also build up coastal elevations by trapping sediment during floods, and produce new soil from roots and decaying organic matter.

“One of the cool things about salt marshes is that they are perhaps the best example of an ecosystem that actually depends on carbon accumulation to survive climate change: The accumulation of roots in the soil builds their elevation, keeping the plants above the water,” Kirwan said.

Salt marshes store enormous quantities of carbon, essential to plant productivity, by, in essence, breathing in the atmospheric carbon and then using it to grow, flourish and increase the height of the soil. Even as the grasses die, the carbon remains trapped in the sediment. The researchers’ model predicts that under faster sea-level rise rates, salt marshes could bury up to four times as much carbon as they do now.

“Our work indicates that the value of these ecosystems in capturing atmospheric carbon might become much more important in the future, as the climate warms,” Kirwan said.

But the study also shows that marshes can survive only moderate rates of sea level rise. If seas rise too quickly, the marshes could not increase their elevations at a rate rapid enough to stay above the rising water. And if marshes were to be overcome by fast-rising seas, they no longer could provide the carbon storage capacity that otherwise would help slow climate warming and the resulting rising water.

“At fast levels of sea level rise, no realistic amount of carbon accumulation will help them survive,” Kirwan noted.

Kirwan and his co-author, Simon Mudd, a geosciences researcher at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, used computer models to predict salt marsh growth rates under different climate change and sea-level scenarios.

###

The United States Geological Survey’s Global Change Research Program supported the research.

Contact: Fariss Samarrai  fls4f@virginia.edu (and tell him to make complete press releases please)

===============================================================

After some searching, I found the paper and the abstract:

Response of salt-marsh carbon accumulation to climate change

Matthew L. Kirwan & Simon M. Mudd

Nature 489, 550–553 (27 September 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11440

About half of annual marine carbon burial takes place in shallow water ecosystems where geomorphic and ecological stability is driven by interactions between the flow of water, vegetation growth and sediment transport1. Although the sensitivity of terrestrial and deep marine carbon pools to climate change has been studied for decades, there is little understanding of how coastal carbon accumulation rates will change and potentially feed back on climate2, 3. Here we develop a numerical model of salt marsh evolution, informed by recent measurements of productivity and decomposition, and demonstrate that competition between mineral sediment deposition and organic-matter accumulation determines the net impact of climate change on carbon accumulation in intertidal wetlands. We find that the direct impact of warming on soil carbon accumulation rates is more subtle than the impact of warming-driven sea level rise, although the impact of warming increases with increasing rates of sea level rise. Our simulations suggest that the net impact of climate change will be to increase carbon burial rates in the first half of the twenty-first century, but that carbon–climate feedbacks are likely to diminish over time.

 

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
richardscourtney

The article says;

A large portion of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels to energize a rapidly growing world human population.

“A large proportion”?
Nature emits 34 molecules of carbon dioxide for each molecule of carbon dioxide emitted by all human activities.
Richard

It all reminds me of the Aristotlelian Science of epi-cycles where the failure of the theory to predict events was gradually modified with ever increasing complexity to keep up with reality. Rather than re-think the CAGW theory, counteractive mechanisms are added continuously to the model ib order to explain the failures. Eventually people notice that the theory is falling apart.

Lance Wallace

They discovered CO2 is good for plants? Wow.
Basically a win-win situation, except to stay on message (and continue the grant money flowing), they had to throw in a reference to a very fast sea level rise (how likely is this?) messing things up.

MarkW

Carbon dioxide is the predominant so-called “greenhouse gas”
——-
Predominant????
There goes there credibility.

MarkW

“But the study also shows that marshes can survive only moderate rates of sea level rise. ”
Good thing sea levels are only rising by a couple of millimeters a year

Maus

richardscourtney: “Nature emits 34 molecules of carbon dioxide for each molecule of carbon dioxide emitted by all human activities.”
But if we don’t do something now it could rise from 1 in 35 to 1 in 34. And then we’d all be doomed. As a purely selfish benefit do you have any links handy on this matter from sources that are acceptable to the climatology crowd?

Peter Crawford

The salt marsh in North Wales, immediately east of Portmadoc produces the finest lamb you can buy. Contrary to popular belief the meat is not naturally salty. The plants that grow there repel salt so the lambs that eat them have a naturally herby flavour. This salt marsh was deliberately created by William Maddocks and his hombres from Anglesey. Scientists were not involved at any point. Good job.
William S. Burroughs had a good quote about scientists but it is very rude.

AndyG55

“Carbon dioxide is the predominant so-called “greenhouse gas” that acts as sort of an atmospheric blanket, trapping the Earth’s heat. Over time, an abundance of carbon dioxide can change the global climate, according to generally accepted scientific theory. A warmer climate melts polar ice, causing sea levels to rise.
Gees.. count the errors !!!!!! and that’s just in one sentence !!!!!
roflmao !!!

AndyG55

well 3 sentences. one paragraph. I meant.

Dennis Gaskill

Seems like propaganda for teenagers, with words like “cool” and “Sort of” ,,,,,,,,,,Those are really precise terms. The best part was how the roots would grow and and keep the plants above water while the Sea level rises…..as if the water level never changes in marshes. It’s just drivel for the masses.

AndyG55

“research assistant professor of environmental sciences in the College of Arts & Sciences.”
When they start bundling Arts and Science, you KNOW they have a big problem !
Poor Uni.Virginia. Credibility takes yet ANOTHER major hit .

catweazle666

Concerning the method used for sequestration of carbon by salt marshes, the same could equally be said of peat bogs, huge areas of which are being gratuitously destroyed by the construction of wind farms and their associated facilities such as access roads, so not only are huge quantities of sequestered carbon being released into the environment, the capability of the bog to sequester future emissions will be heavily compromised too.
And yet as far as I can tell, this aspect of wind farm construction has not been considered worthy of even minor investigation.
What a surprise….

F. Ross

“… A warmer climate melts polar ice, causing sea levels to rise. …”

Non sequitur?
Seems to me I’ve heard somewhere that the South Pole has net growth in ice.
Seems to me somewhere I’ve heard that the North Pole is floating [sea] ice.
Where did I go wrong?

DJ

CO2 is NOT the “predominant” greenhouse gas. It’s the one that gets the most attention, and the one we pay the highest taxes on, but it’s not the one that is most prevalent in the atmosphere.

polistra

The usual mindless assumption of causation.
It occurs to me that we don’t actually know if the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is OUTGASSED FROM the ocean, as it did EVERY PREVIOUS TIME it increased.
Should be possible to determine this experimentally. I’d imagine something like a large airtight dome floating on the ocean, descending down far enough that its edge would never be exposed to the air by wave motion. This would naturally experience a moving ‘selection’ of water but no new atmosphere. Keep it in place for a year, measuring air and water temperature and complete chemical content of air inside and outside. After four seasons, you should have a pretty good idea of how much CO2 was added or subtracted to the initial air by the water underneath.

Mike Roddy

The problem is not just sea level, though we can expect roughly a meter by 2100. The authors (at least in this summary) did not quantify the amount of CO2 that would be sequestered by salt marshes. Forests are the main terrestrial carbon sinks, and they are in decline, from logging, fires, pests, and disruptive global warming. Salt marshes can’t do much to offset degraded sinks.

D Böehm

Mike Roddy says:
“The problem is not just sea level, though we can expect roughly a meter by 2100.”
That’s on your planet, Mike. Here on Earth we can expect several inches. Maybe even a foot.

R. Shearer

Pepper and mint marches would go really well with the salt marches for raising lamb. Yummy!

Sarcasm

I love eg Chiefios Carbon-is-Plant-Food stories, however the green stuff gives back all that it sequestered at end of life. To give wood a NET carbon sequestration effect, we need to cut down the trees and lacquer them before they decompose. Instead of buying carbon offsets in a forest where the natives use slash and burn, Gore needs to start storing piles of plastic- coated lumber behind his manse.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From the Abstract:

Our simulations suggest that the net impact of climate change will be to increase carbon burial rates in the first half of the twenty-first century, but that carbon–climate feedbacks are likely to diminish over time.

The first half goes without saying, but due to the higher atmospheric CO₂ levels causing increased plant growth thus increasing “carbon burial” as peat and tree trunks, and there’ll be more “buried” if the forest fires are kept controlled.
But the second half sounds like an echo from the “ocean acidification” doomsaying, Nature will absorb some of the excess CO₂, as it is currently absorbing about half of the total “excess anthropogenic” emissions. But at some point the absorption mechanism will get saturated, and then…!

John West

As soon as I see “heat trapping” I know they’re clueless. You can’t trap heat. Energy that isn’t being transferred isn’t heat. Zero credibility.

Bart

Sarcasm says:
September 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm
“I love eg Chiefios Carbon-is-Plant-Food stories, however the green stuff gives back all that it sequestered at end of life.”
This expresses a logical error which gets repeated often. It is a dynamic reservoir. It stores carbon in proportion to the current size of that reservoir. If the size increases, so does the amount it is holding. The only way you are going to get zero net is if, after increasing in size, it decreases back to what it was before it increased.

Robert of Ottawa

I do not even have the energy to read this carp. The MSM is just a state propaganda organ, kow-towing to whatever statist idea is in vogue. Don’t forget that Warmistas are funded by the state, indirectly and directly; and the Warmistas’ organisations are directing their energy at state policy.
It’s called a gravy train.

At the start of the Holocene, our present pleasant interglacial which began 20,000 years ago, sea levels were 440 ft below current level. Therefore, in the last 20,000 years, oceans were able to rise 439 ft WITHOUT ANY HUMAN ASSISTANCE. Surprising to the A & S clowns at UV, salt marshes were able to ‘relocate’ with sudden rises of as much as 50 ft in one year. This ‘report’ is a juvenile effort to get on, or stay on, the AGW gravey train. An atmospheric CO2 molecule cannot capture, store or redirect outgoing radiation, it merely vibrates for a billionth of a second as the photon passes on it’s way to outer space. Consider ‘sequestration’ for what it is….vegetation struggling to provide a base for the food chain. Stop with the GHE drama and be greatful for this wonderous, self balancing world….that GROWS on CO2.

Since I was brought up:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/got-wood/
As the amount of CO2 in the air over a given area is very little in mass, a standing forest consumes more than ALL CO2 overhead. Bamboo is even faster.
I have a series of pictures in the posting of a 1 foot square tile with a chunk of plant stuff on top of it that holds the equivalent of ALL CO2 above the tile to the top of the air. Like this one:
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/oakdsc_6048.jpg
Notice that the citrus tree trunk behind it has much more wood per square foot….
The necessary conclusion is that forests will rapidly deplete excess CO2 down to the level where plants have trouble growing at full rate. That adding CO2 causes rapid increases in plant growth confirms we were in that state prior to our recent production of it to excess (and chopping down giant swaths of forest globally…)

All these sea level rises…. and that would be where exactly ?
As somebody professionally tasked with measuring sea levels – I find the rising sea levels meme trotted out by paid for alarmists exasperating in the extreme. The global rising sea level has as many facets as the global surface temperature – and I think most here are aware of the liberties some folk take with that….
Salt marshes are very trendy ecosystems in eco-land and are attracting shed loads of money and it would seem clouds of a new type of blood sucking midge. In the UK – eco cash is being lobbied hard for – one can hardly blame farmers if they make more money from subsidy farming of taxpayers.
Get a load of the fake charities and assorted midges hanging around this project

Not news, but propaganda.

Barbee

Future Headline:
Global Warming causes Global Cooling

TImothy Sorenson

There is a good side to this. Remember the long list of possible factors affecting ‘climate change’? Well this one was not on that list nor is it in the models. So this is climate science admitting we missed a carbon sink that could affect our models, but it won’t affect our future prediction of CAGW.

AndyG55

@ E.M.Smith.
If you study predator/prey or other food source type data you will see that is is how things work.
It also points to the so-called stable value for CO2 of around 250 -280ppm is actually the BARE SUBSISTENCE level for the balance between plant life and CO2.
At around this value most plants have their stomata packed in about as tight as they can, and are higly inefficient in their use of water, because so much of it transpires through the packed stomata.
PLANTS NEED MORE CO2. STOP STARVING THE PLANTS !!!
toward 600+ ppm 🙂 !!!

Dave Dodd

Mike Roddy says:
September 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I hope you are NOT related to Dave Roddy with whom I worked at USGS when they were still part of this planetary system! Dave Roddy was a scientist, pilot and personal friend, who departed this earth much too soon. He studied REAL threats to planet Earth i.e. meteor strikes, etc. (think Meteor Crater, near Flagstaff, AZ) He also knew cAGW was hogwash as did the other scientists who were employed at that time. I’m ashamed of where USGS now finds itself!!

I’m surprised that the paper’s authors didn’t take immediate exception to the several, incorrect assertions made in the press release – http://tinyurl.com/d3adzcx (link to UV press release). I believe both skeptic and alarmist agree on the following (which have already been pointed out by a number of commentators):
1. Water vapor and not carbon dioxide is the (only) predominant greenhouse gas;
2. Carbon dioxide does not trap heat but it does absorb and re-radiant a portion of the earth’s thermal energy; and
3. 5-9% of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions (as emitted annually by humanity) does not represent a large portion of all atmospheric carbon but rather reflect a minority interest.
While other assertions may be true (or not) depending upon how they are nuanced (e.g., what is an “enormous” quantity of carbon, a warmer “climate” melts polar caps and rises sea levels, and what is the global climate other than Gaia), the prominent stumble vis-a-vis the press release invariably diminishes the paper – at least with those who adhere to the scientific method and its results reporting process.
Although the paper is behind the Nature paywall, I trust Kinwan and Mudd note Connor et al. (2001) in their references, who (more or less) concluded the same with regard to the carbon capture potential of salt marshes (more than 10 years ago) – http://tinyurl.com/boxhcmf (link to Global Biogeochemcial Cycles paper).

“Salt marsh carbon may play role in slowing climate warming, study shows”
Anybody knows how much of the Earth’s surface are salt marshes?
This is like painting roofs white in order to cool down the Earth’s temperature.
When are these never-ending claims of silly assumptions going to stop?

old engineer

“Carbon dioxide is the predominant so-called ‘greenhouse gas’…..” Even leaving out water vapor, is it?.
The last time there was discussion here at WUWT about whether to use scenario A or B from Hansen’s 1988 paper (back in May, I believe) I decided to start a detailed look at the scenarios. The first thing I looked at was CO2. I made up a spread sheet to calculate the year by year CO2 for each of the scenarios.
For 2011, the CO2 ambient concentration for scenario A was 393.7 ppm and for scenario B the concentration was 391 ppm. The greenhouse gas concentration differences for the two scenarios were in the other gases he used. So if CO2 is the predominate greenhouse gas, and Hansen’ scenario A and B have essentially the same CO2 concentration in 2011, how come there is a 25% difference in the A and B temperature anomalies for 2011 (1.0 to 1.25 deg. C)?. Then consider the fact 394 ppm is close to the actual ambient level in 2011, and the actual temperature anomaly is about 0.4 deg. C
Well, I suppose you could define “predominant” to mean: causes greater than 51 percent of the temperature anomaly increase in the models.

Katherine

Carbon dioxide is the predominant so-called “greenhouse gas” that acts as sort of an atmospheric blanket, trapping the Earth’s heat.
No, it’s not. Water vapor is the predominant “greenhouse gas.” The effect of carbon dioxide needs amplification by water vapor to cause any catastrophic result.
A large portion of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels to energize a rapidly growing world human population.
Since when did less than 3% become a “large portion”?
Kirwan and his co-author, Simon Mudd, a geosciences researcher at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, used computer models to predict salt marsh growth rates under different climate change and sea-level scenarios.
It’s models all the way down.

AnonyMoose

How about we start giving such press releases what they deserve?
If they don’t name the paper, ignore it. We can’t be certain that any papers which we find are the ones being described in the press release. So just show the press release and laugh at its lack of release.

Manfred

It’s hard to credit this stuff to thinking adults, yet it is the domain of Science Academies, Governments, Greenies, Warmists et al and, if one is to believe it, the populus as a whole and all scientists but the silliest fringe of the mentally compromised, or so we are told.
Never has it been more true that: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane”
Marcus Aurelius

janama

The journal Nature’s editor should hang his/her head in shame!!

Um,,,,,, let me ask a simple question. What is the actual global warming temperature differential that we talk about?
Okay, in simpler terms, would it not be appropriate to have a global warming thermometer calculator thingy? Like the debt clock thing……
Is the global warming you’re actually talking about actually 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 160 years?
If not, what is it?
What is the actual number for global warming that we all reference and everyone talks about ?
It is a bit perplexing, no?

eyesonu

E.M.Smith says:
September 26, 2012 at 4:48 pm
===================
I followed the links you post in your above comment. Excellent way to put CO2 in perspective.
I hope that this can be vetted and placed as a leading post on WUWT for much greater exposure. Your description is worth more than a thousand words.

Gunga Din

John West says:
September 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm
As soon as I see “heat trapping” I know they’re clueless. You can’t trap heat. Energy that isn’t being transferred isn’t heat. Zero credibility.
======================================================================
“Heat trapping” is the PETA-approved replacement for “snipe hunting”.

“We find that the direct impact of warming on soil carbon accumulation rates is more subtle than the impact of warming-driven sea level rise, although the impact of warming increases with increasing rates of sea level rise.”
I think I get it. Higher sea builds up the marsh, but too high sea drowns the plants.
Saltwater marshes may store enormous amounts of carbon, but they also emit enormous amounts of methane, so what’s the point.

Gunga Din

“One of the cool things about salt marshes is that they are perhaps the best example of an ecosystem that actually depends on carbon accumulation to survive climate change: The accumulation of roots in the soil builds their elevation, keeping the plants above the water,” Kirwan said.
==========================================================================
Is that better?

“…A warmer climate melts polar ice, causing sea levels to rise…”
So, it stands to reason that if the warmer climate has given us the greatest melt of Arctic Sea Ice since the start of the satellite observations, we should also be seeing the greatest amount of sea level rise in the same time period.

”Salt marsh carbon may play role in slowing climate warming, study shows”
NO, study doesn’t show, it’s a creation of a ”BACKDOOR EXIT” – for spending trillion bucks for preventing the non-existent global warming; sold to the Urban Sheep as ”climate change” to get themselves out of trouble.
Marshes, sunspots, galactic dust, ozone, the sea, the polar ice; just not to admit that ”it was a gigantic / expensive lie, and nothing more. Fake Skeptics are faithfully assisting the Warmist – to cover-up the Warmist shame, for lying = The so called ”Skeptics” reduced themselves into a Warmist’s ”Fig leafs” welcome to the circus…

@eyesonu:
Thanks! Anthony has ‘carte blanche’ to use anything I post that he finds useful.
The strange thing is that I did those calculations at least a dozen times. Still, when I look at the one tile with the corn stalk standing on it, leaning against the large tree trunk behind it, I think “Naahhh… can’t be”…. and do the calculations again… Even this time, did a quick estimate of about 10 ounces as a ‘sanity check’ on CO2 over a tile…
It really is a startling “visual”…
I have a stand of “Timber Bamboo” in my back yard that shoves up a 3 to 4 inch stem, 30 to 40 foot tall, in about a month of growth (out of the year). That means it is sucking ALL the CO2 out of a column above it of several square feet per stem. BAM!! gone from the air…
My neighbor planted a few Redwood Trees about 20 years ago. Now “several feet” circumference and headed for 100 foot tall. (They grow very fast). Some Poplars (Hybrid Black Cottonwood) and some Eucalyptus can put on 50 TONS / acre of wood per YEAR. (Yes, for most species and environments, 12 to 20 tons is more common, but 50 can be done). That’s “wet”, so you need to roughly cut it in half for dry. Still, the numbers are astounding.
IMHO, the reason CO2 has gone up in the last 200 years is the rate of forest clearing for farming over Europe, North and South America, etc. We’ve cut off a major sink and burned most of it.
Want to get CO2 scrubbed from the air? Plant a forest of ‘fast growth’ trees and stand back…
Global cement production (a big CO2 producer) used / released 377 M tons of carbon as CO2 in 2007. Oh, the panic… Yet to consume that would take about 200 x 300 miles of high growth trees (at full production) for a year. Not enough to even notice if replanted in some of the strip mined clear cut areas of The Federal Forests…
(As a rough approximation just now done, so needs checking…)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
“Emissions from cement production (377 million metric tons of carbon in 2007)”
Then remember that algae production can a few times more than that per acre… and there’s a lot more water in the world…
Sucking CO2 out of the air is NOT a problem. Nature can do it, has done it, and is very very good at it… down to about 250 – 280 ppm… then it gets slow. As does food production.
So more CO2 is a very good thing, and “less” it what happens naturally as a runaway thing… until the plants are starving again…
Short Form: Air is very light weight. CO2 is a trivial part of the air. Wood is very heavy. Doesn’t take much wood formation to suck up ALL the CO2 in a given column of air…

John F. Hultquist

“henrythethird says:
September 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“So, it stands to reason . . . ”
Quite so. And it was thoughtful of you not to finish that exposition. The cognitive dissonance would have been too much for some of the CAGW crowd and some heads might explode.

John F. Hultquist

E.M.Smith says:
September 26, 2012 at 8:47 pm
“ . . .replanted in some of the strip mined clear cut areas . . .

E.M., I’m wondering why you did the strike through there? Maybe it was a way of equating those two things. But, I grew up in Western Pennsylvania with a dragline operator for an uncle. My cousins and I played on the spoil heaps and swam in the water filled cuts. The only attempt to help the land recover came from a local boy scout troop that planted scotch pines. All plants grew quite slowly on these rocky and porous heaps. Later on – I had moved away – restoration efforts improved. Maybe the CO2 concentration was sufficiently low to contribute to that slow growth.
My grandparent’s small house became a hunting cabin for new owners and they planted the land in Christmas trees to pay the taxes. Many such cases of that. Many of those abandoned farms have returned to mostly natural forest. Some have gone urban. See and read about the maps, here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/AncientForest/ancient_forest6.php

Sarcasm

Tree sinks… It only works if you don’t burn the product or let it decompose. Of course sequestering blocks of wood is a lot more convenient than and carbon sequestration plans I’ve seen for coal power plants, and less scary than Yucca Mountain. Yes, big government, you may store wood in my back yard.
If it could be encased in something strong, we could develop wooden skyscrapers? The hope would be a tall building denser in stored carbon than the Forrest that used to be around it.
Wood decomposes hardly at all when frozen. We could deploy massive wooden rafts in the Arctic sea ice and kill two birds at once – carbon sequestered and polar bears rescued from drowning.

AndyG55

@ E.M.Smith
World biomass has increased significantly in the last couple of decades.
We MUST keep feeding it. More CO2 = GOOD !!
By burning coal, we are releasing long buried CO2 that SHOULD be in the atmosphere.